Ian Pearson: I agree with my hon. Friend that Wolverhampton is an excellent university. What is important for the Government is that we fund excellent research. I am tremendously proud of the world-class research conducted in our universities. We have to ensure that the people taking the decisions on what is the best research to fund are independent of the Government. That is why we have the Research Councils and why it has an extensive peer review process. That is the right approach for taking decisions on individual research projects.

Adam Afriyie: I am somewhat surprised by the gloating and boasting of the Minister about science in the UK. He will be aware of the worry and concern among university scientists, researchers and academics about their future. Given the Government's £80 million shortfall for the STFC, the STFC has said that it will scale back the number of research grants that it provides. Will the Minister have the courage to answer this question directly, without beating about the bush: under his watch, will the number of Government-funded post-doctoral research assistants be higher or lower by 2010?

Bill Rammell: A significant number of overseas students are studying at our universities, which is of considerable benefit to those universities. Throughout my discussions with Conservative Front-Benchers, I have been led to believe that the Conservative party supports the promotion of such opportunities for overseas students—and they do speak English: there is no reputable evidence to suggest that people embarking on United Kingdom university courses do not have an English language capability and cannot benefit from such study.

John Hayes: The Minister knows that the average number of apprentices in training overall has declined as more emphasis has been placed on other forms of workplace training, such as Train to Gain. The Government are banking on Train to Gain, even though it has emerged that the basic contract does not pay for much beyond assessing employees existing skills. What a contrast with the best of apprenticeships of the kind that you completed, Mr. Speaker. The Government must know that the failure to support apprenticeships and emphasise Train to Gain is in stark contrast with the LSC survey that found that the majority of employers who have signed up to Train to Gain have seen
	"no financial benefit from taking part."
	Why does the Minister think that is?

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman confuses a whole series of factors, and I shall deal with each in turn. The number of advanced apprenticeships being successfully completed is far higher than when the previous Government were in power. The previous Government put people in advanced apprenticeships, but none of them completed their courses. That was pointless. Advanced apprenticeships make up 30 per cent. of a growing programme—a proportion that has remained pretty much the same—but we are investing more money in new opportunities for apprenticeships.
	The latest available figures show that the number of young people from the lower socioeconomic groups who have been accepted for university was the highest ever. We are the first to say that there are things that remain to be done, but the previous Government cut the amount spent on students and made no serious effort to promote opportunity. Given their record, I am proud of what we have done, and I am convinced that the Labour party is the one that can tackle these problems in future.

John Denham: My hon. Friend raises an important point; I know that when he answered a similar question a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland estimated that 55,000 students would be affected by the change. It is also the case that raising what council tax in Scotland currently brings in would require the imposition of a 5p local income tax. That comes against a background in which the separatists promised to get rid of student debt, but turned back on their commitment. The track record is not good.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her statement and for giving me prior sight of it, although I got more notice through her appearances on television and radio this morning. I agree with the Government that there is a need to streamline and update equalities legislation and I welcome the direction that the Government are taking with the Bill. I look forward to working constructively with them on ensuring that we have workable and practical legislation to provide for a fair society.
	However, today's announcement has been a long time in coming. The Government first announced their commitment to a single equalities Bill in their 2005 general election manifesto. On 25 July last year, the Deputy Leader of the House told the House that,
	"we will produce a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny over the coming year".—[ Official Report, 25 July 2007; Vol. 463, c.1009.]
	Subsequently, there have been promises of draft clauses of the measure. Now we have an announcement lacking in detail with no specific time commitments, and more discussions on action in the coming months. Why has it taken the Government so long to introduce the sensible and practical measure for which we are all looking?
	We welcome the broad thinking behind the approach to age discrimination, but again, the lack of detail on implementation and exemptions is baffling and disappointing. We support fair provision of services for older people and we need to ensure that the proposals will genuinely benefit them. The right hon. and learned Lady has recognised that the health service is a key area that will be affected by the age discrimination proposals, yet she has carefully avoided going into detail about that. Will she now confirm that the proposals will affect not only the planning of health services for older people but decisions about the treatment of individuals? On the radio this morning, she also talked about the need for planning applications to take age concerns into account. Does she propose to change the Planning Bill that is currently going through Parliament to accommodate those proposals?
	In her statement, the Minister said that the Government would consider using procurement contracts to deliver transparency. In her media interviews, she was more specific, saying that companies bidding for public contracts would have to publish pay gap figures. The implication of that was that if the figures were bad, the company would not get the business. What exactly is the Government's position on this? Those proposals are far removed from the compulsory pay audits that the right hon. and learned Lady has supported in the past, and continues to support on her website. Can she therefore confirm that she has lost the equal pay battle in the Cabinet, and that the Bill will not include compulsory pay audits?
	In her statement, the right hon. and learned Lady said that employment tribunals would be able to make wide-ranging recommendations when an employer was found guilty of discrimination. We have proposed compulsory pay audits for employers who are found guilty of discrimination at an employment tribunal. Are the Government adopting our proposals? If not, what does today's statement mean?
	The statement talks of the public sector leading by example, yet many Government Departments have failed to meet their own diversity targets. As the "Framework for a Fairer Future" document makes clear, there are Departments in which the gender pay gap is well above the average, including Her Majesty's Treasury, where it is 26 per cent. We are told that the Equality and Human Rights Commission will conduct inquiries into the sectors where most progress needs to be made, starting with the City. When will the EHRC be invited into the Treasury to look into its record on this issue?
	I welcome the extension of the legislation on positive discrimination in the selection of parliamentary candidates. We have already said that we would support that move. However, the issue of allowing employers to exercise positive discrimination needs clarification. For example, if the head teacher of a primary school with only female teachers wanted to discriminate in favour of a male teacher, would that be permitted under the proposals? One area covered by the EHRC to which the Minister's statement has made no reference is religious discrimination. Do the Government intend to include religious discrimination in their new equality Bill?
	Until now, the Government have rightly sought to stamp out discrimination. The Bill takes a different approach. It will include measures to prevent discrimination, and measures to allow discrimination in certain circumstances. It introduces further complexity and confuses the Government's message. After all these years, this is a huge missed opportunity. The Government could have introduced a revolutionary approach to equalities legislation, promoting fairness and diversity within a positive and sensible framework. Instead, the right hon. and learned Lady has been quoted as using phrases such as "empowering the resentful". The Bill should seek to unite, not to divide. It has good intentions, but its lack of detail and clarity is disappointing. I am willing to work with the Government on this matter, because the issue of equalities is one that deserves to be looked at above and beyond the emotions of party politics. I hope that the right hon. and learned Lady will join me in endeavouring to ensure that we can do just that.

Harriet Harman: I thank the right hon. Lady for her broad welcome for the package and for our endeavours. I also welcome the fact that she has ignored the cries from her own Back Benchers that the proposals are rubbish. I welcome the fact that she wants us to streamline and update the legislation—we intend to do so—and that she wants to work constructively with us. There will be an opportunity for further discussion before the Queen's Speech later this year, and before the Bill is brought into the House. If she has proposals to bring forward, I would ask her please to do so. We will consider them carefully, as we want to work together on this.
	The right hon. Lady said that the paper that we published today lacked substantive proposals, yet it announces that we intend to legislate for the first time to put a duty on all public authorities not to discriminate against people on the ground of age, and to promote equality for older people. That is new. We are also proposing for the first time to put into law the right of people not to be discriminated against in the provision of goods and services because they are older. That is also new. We have announced that we propose to put into law positive action for those employers who want to diversify their work force. We have brought forward new proposals on public procurement, public appointments and ending gagging clauses. If the right hon. Lady has an alternative list of substance, let her bring it forward. We would welcome that, as we want to make further progress.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether I propose to change the Planning Bill in respect of public sector duties on local and other authorities. The whole point of the public duty is that it overrides and infuses the approach to everything. We do not have to put in a public sector duty, Bill by Bill, Act by Act, because it is there and it runs through everything that is done. That is how the public duty works. We do not need to change legislation, as all public authorities will have to have due regard to how what they do affects older people.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned public procurement, which will work like this: there is a public duty on public bodies not to discriminate and to promote equality of race, gender, disability and now age. That applies not only when they employ people and provide services or goods, but when they do public procurement, using the £160 billion of public money. Spending public money is a public function, and the equality duties apply to the public function. That way, public bodies can say, "If you want to do business with the public sector, you need to tell us what your pay gap is. How many disabled are you employing? What is the percentage of black and Asian people in your work force?" Then, if a number of companies are equally qualified for that contract, the authority, in its duty to promote equality, will pick the one doing best on equality.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned disclosure of the gender pay gap. We have explained that that will be mandatory in the public sector. It will then be driven through the public sector, into that 30 per cent. of business that is publicly procured from the private sector. If the private sector does not voluntarily conduct the gender pay audits and checks, we have powers in legislation to require it to do so.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the Treasury. The whole point about producing league tables is so that we can see who is lagging behind and who needs to make a bit more progress. I certainly do not think that women are not good enough at numbers or incapable of being financial experts; rather, there are patterns of entrenched expectations. Once we make them clear and expose them, we can take action on them.
	The right hon. Lady asked about primary school head teachers. If there was an all-female work force and the head teacher, having a number of equally qualified candidates, wanted to ensure that there were some men teaching in her school, she would be able to do that. The proposals clarify the law, so that employers have more ability to promote equality and diversity within their work forces.
	The right hon. Lady said that we had not done enough. However, we have introduced civil partnerships and flexible working, and we have eliminated age discrimination against older people in employment. We have done all that. I remind her that for the 18 years in which her party was in government, it introduced not a single piece of equality legislation. The Conservatives' version of equality legislation was clause 28. I know that those on the Opposition Front Bench have changed, so I hope that the right hon. Lady will bring her Back Benchers along to join the 21st century.

Ann Winterton: Is the right hon. and learned Lady aware that, despite what she said, what she proposes will be an extremely harsh burden on smaller businesses because of the extra amount of red tape and bureaucracy with which they already have to deal? The Bill will be a further blow. I come from a small business background, so I know that better than some on the Government Benches who have never had any experience of running a small business. May I say that I am completely at odds with my own party because I have never believed in positive discrimination, but it will reassure the right hon. and learned Lady to know that her plans for older workers will perhaps protect me from any retaliatory action?

David Winnick: Arising from that last question, is it not the case that, 40 years ago, it was a Labour Government who legislated amidst tremendous controversial opposition to outlaw race discrimination, which many of us had strongly urged? The current proposals are intended, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, to deal with various outstanding forms of discrimination against women, the disabled and certainly against age prejudice. Without in any way wishing to be misunderstood, would it not be a good thing if we took it as normal that there should be people in the Cabinet of pensionable age? That would certainly give a lead against age discrimination.

Harriet Harman: I will make sure that the Prime Minister gets to see my hon. Friend's comment. He is absolutely right that whenever we have introduced legislation to tackle discrimination, there has often been a huge row. But yesterday's controversy becomes today's conventional wisdom. We are confident that we can work with all sides to ensure that our proposals are as easy to apply as possible. It is a modern society that is a fair society and a modern economy that is a fair economy.

Harriet Harman: We are just allowing for a permissive measure, so that if an employer with a number of equally qualified candidates wants to promote diversity in their team, either because women are under-represented or they have too few black and Asian people, on that basis, they can choose the under-represented group. There is also the question of the discrimination against black and Asian women, which would not happen in the same way against black and Asian men, or against white women. Given the hon. Gentleman's question, I hope that he will back us in solving such problems of multiple discrimination.

John Bercow: Although her statement meets with denunciations that are as furious as they are predictable from Members of the Taliban tendency, may I tell the Minister that her statement is right by those who have long suffered discrimination, and right in the interests of the country as a whole? Will she confirm that the equality Bill will contain robust measures to tackle homophobic bullying and to deal equally robustly with the gender pay gap among part-time workers in the public sector, and that the legislation will be on the statute book by the summer of 2009?

Angela Watkinson: In the recruitment and employment process, it should not matter which group an applicant happens to belong to. People should be recruited and employed on the grounds of their merit and capability of doing the job. To employ somebody for any other reason would be discriminatory. On all-women shortlists for parliamentary seats, the suggestion is that women can only succeed if men are excluded from the process, which is demonstrably untrue, discriminatory and offensive to women.

Harriet Harman: The evidence is in front of the hon. Lady's eyes. If she thinks that there is not a systematic, structural problem, how does she account for the fact that, per hour, women who work part-time are paid 40 per cent. less than men? Surely she cannot believe that a woman who works part-time is 40 per cent. less intelligent, less committed, less experienced and less hard-working than a man who works full-time. There is structural discrimination, which has been swept under the carpet, and we must expose and tackle it. Of course, the group that people belong to should not matter, but it does. That is why there is a pattern of entrenched pay discrimination, which we are determined to expose and sort out.
	As for the question of women in the House of Commons, as I have said, when I was first in the House only 3 per cent. of Members of Parliament were women. There were 10 Labour and 13 Conservative women MPs. We resorted to positive action, and we now have 96 Labour women MPs. The Conservatives did not resort to positive action, and over those 25 years they have increased the number of Conservative MPs only from 13 to 17. At that rate, we shall never see equality. We must take positive action to ensure proper representation.

Harriet Harman: I take the hon. Gentleman's point: if people start from very unequal positions, they do not have equality of opportunity. I thank him for supporting our overall aim. As he will know, we have already outlawed discrimination on grounds of religion and belief, and we plan to exemplify that in the Bill by embodying it in the public-sector duty. However, we shall have to have further discussions on how that will work out, because it is less straightforward than including the public-sector duty on discrimination in relation to age.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her welcome statement. We have seen some mischief-making on the Conservative Benches, and today's  Daily Express has commented "White Men to Face Jobs Ban". I should have thought that the  Express would have welcomed the age-discrimination element in view of the age of most its readers, but will my right hon. and learned Friend please assure the House and the wider public that this is not a proposal to ban white men from jobs?

Harriet Harman: Different parts of the public sector have made varying degrees of progress. When there is proper transparency in relation to the gender pay gap, the disability employment level and the employment rate of ethnic-minority staff, public authority by public authority, we shall be able to see who has been making progress.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to make further progress on settling the backlog of equal pay cases. As he will know, the Department for Communities and Local Government has made available £500 million of capitalisation to enable local employers to do that. Half of them have already done it, but more progress is needed.
	It is always difficult to sort out entrenched patterns of discrimination, but the best option is to sort them out and then move forward on an equal basis.

Russell Brown: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her statement. Dumfries and Galloway elderly forum will be delighted by what she has said. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who quoted a headline from the  Daily Express. Today's  Daily Mail says that
	"women will be more equal than men".
	Does that not belittle the work that the Government are trying to do, and does it not also show that those who write banner headlines of that nature have never been on the receiving end of discrimination?

Harriet Harman: I am glad that there will be a welcome for our proposals in Dumfries and Galloway elderly forum. I hope that all the elderly forums in the country that bring together the various agencies, voluntary organisations and pensioners' action groups will work with us to ensure that they are implemented swiftly and effectively.
	The challenge that I would issue to the  Daily Mail is: who did actually write that headline? Who actually thinks, with a gender pay gap of 40 per cent., that women are more equal than men? That day might arrive, but it is certainly a long way off.

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement following the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, issued last Wednesday, in the case of Davis.
	As the House will know, the Law Lords decided that there was not sufficient authority in common law to provide for the current arrangements for the admission of anonymous evidence, and said that this was a matter for Parliament to deal with by statute. The Government will therefore present a Bill to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency. I hope very much that it will be published next week, and that, subject to the usual channels, it will be debated and complete all its stages in the House of Commons during the following week. For reasons that I shall explain, it is essential for it to receive Royal Assent and come into force before Parliament breaks for the summer recess.
	I am extremely grateful to the Opposition parties for their co-operation in this matter. I also fully appreciate that, like other Members, they will not be able to judge the merits of the Government's proposals fully until the details are available.
	The background to this statement is as follows. As long as there has been crime, criminals have sought to intimidate witnesses in order to avoid punishment. Criminal justice systems across the world have sought to deal with this problem. Criminals do not operate by the rules, but the rule of law requires that justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done. The right of a defendant to confront his or her accusers in open court has been a key feature of all systems of justice worthy of that name. That right should be modified only where it is fully justified.
	In recent years, witness intimidation has become an all too common feature in crimes of a serious nature, especially those involving guns, gangs or drugs. Such is the fear that can be engendered by such criminals that entire communities in an area may be reluctant to come forward to give any evidence about what they know.
	In the Court of Appeal judgment in Davis, the president of the Queen's bench division, Sir Igor Judge, quoted the evidence of a detective who specialised in murder investigations. He said the following—I hope I shall be permitted to quote at some length:
	"Most people opt not to co-operate and do not get involved. Doors are not opened, arranged meetings result in a witness not turning up, telephone messages go unanswered...This is not a problem that exists on an occasional basis...it is a problem that exists in practically every investigation in one way or another. Such problems exist on a daily basis. I have spoken to witnesses about a reluctance to give evidence. The common factor between all of them is fear. They are in fear of their lives and that of their families and friends. There is a very real danger to such persons of death or serious injury, either to prevent them from giving evidence, or to punish them for giving evidence and to send a warning to those who may be thinking of assisting the police. This risk, I know and the witnesses know, is not necessarily at the hands of the defendants themselves, but at the hands of the associates of the defendant. If the defendant is in custody, it is often the associates who are the physical threat. In many but not all cases, the witness knows of the defendant and their associates. They know they have easy access to firearms and the 'ease' with which they are prepared to use them".
	To deal with this situation, our courts had developed careful and proportionate measures by which the trial judge, where he or she believed it necessary, could order that evidence be given in such a way that the identification of certain key prosecution witnesses was disguised. In some cases, the key witnesses concerned may themselves have been involved in crime; others will be innocent bystanders, and still others may be, and are, undercover police officers or agents. In the Davis case, key witnesses were screened from sight of the defence, were given pseudonyms and had their voices electronically distorted.
	In the Davis appeal, the Court of Appeal reviewed all of the circumstances, the common law authorities and the Strasbourg jurisdiction, and held that measures of this kind were both necessary and just to defendants in this case. Their appeals were therefore dismissed. In the House of Lords, their lordships took the opposite view. In the lead judgment, the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, said:
	"By a series of small steps, largely unobjectionable on their own facts, the courts have arrived at a position which is irreconcilable with long standing principle"
	and common law authorities.
	Lord Mance, who extensively reviewed the Strasbourg jurisprudence, said that he did not believe that the Strasbourg Court would
	"accept that the use of anonymous evidence in the present case satisfied the requirements of article 6".
	However, Lord Mance went on to say that the
	"admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for national law",
	and that the Strasbourg Court has repeatedly stated that the use of anonymous evidence is
	"not under all circumstances incompatible with the Convention".
	And importantly, Lord Mance said it is not certain that
	"there is an absolute requirement that anonymous testimony should not be the sole or decisive evidence".
	In other words, there should be caution about treating the convention, or apparently general statements by the Strasbourg Court, as containing absolutely inflexible rules.
	All of their lordships accepted fully what Lord Bingham said was the "reality of the problem" of witness intimidation, "vividly described" in the Court of Appeal judgment. Lord Bingham went on to say that,
	"this is not a new problem, but it is a serious one. It may very well call for urgent attention by Parliament".
	Lord Rodger said:
	"Parliament is the proper body both to decide whether such a change is now required, and, if so, to devise an appropriate system which still ensures a fair trial".
	Lord Mance echoed these views. He referred to the experience of New Zealand and the Netherlands, who have introduced statutory frameworks for the use of anonymous evidence, and said that,
	"it may well be appropriate that there should be a careful statutory modification of basic common law principles. It is clear from the Strasbourg jurisprudence...that there is scope within the Human Rights Convention for such modification".
	Since the judgment was handed down last week, we have been looking urgently at how a statutory framework could operate, taking account of overseas experiences, not least that of New Zealand. Because of the urgency of the matter, the Bill is literally being drafted as I speak. The House will, therefore, excuse me if I now simply outline our thinking—although I may say that this unusual situation at least has the advantage that the draft can take account of comments made in the House and in the other place today, and it will do.
	The essence of the scheme that will be published in the Bill is that the trial judge will have to be satisfied that the need for anonymity is established, that a fair trial will be possible and that it is in the interests of justice to make such an order for anonymity. There will also be other factors that the judge will have to consider in reaching this decision.
	Parliament should never legislate at the speed at which I am proposing unless it is convinced that there are overwhelming reasons for doing so, but I suggest to the House that this requirement is satisfied in this case. Anonymous evidence is these days fundamental to the successful prosecution of a significant number of cases, some of which involve murder, blackmail, violent disorder and terrorism. Such cases could be jeopardised if we do not quickly fill the gap created by their lordships' judgment. The Crown Prosecution Service is urgently conducting an assessment of the total number of cases in the prosecution pipeline that may be affected. Neither my noble Friend the Attorney-General nor I can yet give definitive estimates of the number of cases involved, but as soon as we do have such accurate estimates we will, of course, make them available to the House.
	In addition to those cases in the prosecution pipeline, there is great concern among the CPS, the police and the wider public that a number of serious criminals convicted by a jury, whose trials satisfied article 6 and common law requirements, and whose appeals have failed, would seek to make use of the technicality of their lordships' judgement to have their convictions quashed. The Bill will, therefore, contain measures to ensure that the appeal courts should not quash convictions solely on the basis that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the common law to provide for anonymity measures. The aim is to ensure that defendants cannot take unfair advantage of this technical defect in the law, which until last Wednesday had been unidentified and unsuspected.
	I will publish this Bill just as soon as it is ready, and I will arrange to hold an open meeting for Members of both Houses in advance of formal consideration in this House.
	Let me finally provide an additional but important reassurance. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already announced in the draft legislative programme for the next Session the law reform, victims and witnesses Bill. We had for months planned in this Bill to provide a statutory basis for anonymous evidence. I can, therefore, give the following undertaking of what amounts to a sunset clause for this urgent measure: the provisions of this Bill, if passed, will be included in next Session's Bill as well, so there will be a full opportunity for both Houses to give further consideration to this important area of the criminal process.
	I commend the statement to the House.

David Howarth: I also thank the Secretary of State for early sight of the statement and for the informal consultations that have taken place. It is a basic principle that defendants should be able to confront the witnesses against them, but it is also fundamental that the rule of law must be defended against intimidation and threats. Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that Liberal Democrat Members also fully recognise that the law has to strike a balance between those two fundamental principles, and that ultimately the details of how to do that lie with Parliament, not with the judges?
	I also want to associate Liberal Democrat Members with the comments that have been made about the attacks on the judiciary, which have been scurrilous and completely misunderstand the constitutional function of the judges. In this case, the judges are doing their job well because they are forcing us to think clearly about something that has not been thought about clearly up until now.
	May I take it from what the Secretary of State has just said that he does accept what Lord Carswell said in the Davis case—that there should be a presumption in favour of openness, and that anonymity should be allowed only where a clear case is made out for its necessity?
	I agree fully with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the risks of legislating in haste and I have some detailed points to make, but they are designed to help the Bill rather than to hinder its progress. First, I must urge him to go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) about the New Zealand Evidence Act 2006, which includes the provision for independent counsel to make a report about credibility. Not only is that an important safeguard for the defence, but it is important for the prosecution in safeguarding the case against the accusation that it is unfair.
	Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill will be essentially temporary. Its most important provisions will be those transitional provisions about the pending and recent cases. I shall be grateful for the figures about how many cases there are when they are available, and I am already grateful for what he said about overruling the House of Lords' decision only prospectively. That is quite proper in such circumstances. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not properly cover the problem of cases that have started now and will continue after the new law is in place. What he said about the common law situation does not apply to those cases. He might want to think about that further.
	Lastly, I am far from convinced that anonymity is required in the magistrates court for les serious crimes. I know that there is the Al Capone point that sometimes very bad people can be nailed for only quite minor offences, but how frequent is that? Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, either now or later, how many of the pending and recent cases are magistrates court cases?
	I assure the right hon. Gentleman that Liberal Democrat Members will do what we can to help the passage of the emergency legislation that he proposes, but we reserve the right to revisit the details of the scheme in the permanent legislation in the autumn.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was glad, although it was not wholly unexpected, to hear him join the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman and myself in deprecating the attacks on the judiciary that have taken place. I do not think that anyone argues with Lord Carswell; it is not a point exclusive to him, but is common to all the judgments in this case, by the Court of Appeal as well as by the House of Lords, and it is a central part of the way in which we operate, that there has to be a presumption in favour of openness. That is the basis on which the trial courts and the Court of Appeal have always operated and is not particularly in issue. The question is on what basis courts should move against that presumption and how they judge that. We are looking at the issue of independent counsel. There are circumstances in which use is made of special advocates in our system, which amounts to the same thing, but there are problems with that.
	We should not get ourselves into a huge lather about transitional arrangements. There is a world of difference between legislation that is retrospective to create substantive criminal offences, which has been regarded as totally out of order in all circumstances, and legislation that changes criminal procedure, which can operate only from the day when it comes into force but then makes a difference as to how cases are judged prospectively, including cases that are in the pipeline, whether that pipeline is trial or appeal within the normal time limits, and cases that come into a new pipeline, which are cases in our system referred well out of time by the Criminal Cases Review Commission or that gain direct access to the Court of Appeal.
	The Bill is effectively designed to say that from the time that it comes into force, which will be very shortly, the courts will not have to quash a conviction, nor, by the same token, will the trial be aborted, simply because the arrangements made might have been regarded as outwith the Law Lords' judgment. That is the point of it. We are working hard on the drafting, but it is so that there is as little disruption as possible to trials currently taking place and in the pipeline, to normal-time appeals and to out-of-time appeals.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raised the point about having sufficient time to discuss amendments on Report. We timetable Report stages with programme motions precisely to take into account the issues that need to be debated. Obviously the timetable varies from Bill to Bill, but his distinction between Opposition and Government amendments is sometimes quite blurred. Quite often, the Government table amendments because we have undertaken to do so at the request of Opposition Members or our own Back Benchers.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Zimbabwe. The House had a chance to hear from the Foreign Secretary in his statement on Zimbabwe on Monday. On Wednesday the Prime Minister answered questions on the matter and reported his and the Government's action. Next Thursday the House will have a one-and-a-half-hour debate, which will be the first opportunity to debate the matter after the elections. Unfortunately, I doubt that that will be the end of the matter, and no doubt we will need to have further debates, but I thought it important that we should have one as soon as possible after the elections. I think that we would all welcome Nelson Mandela's comments last night denouncing Mugabe and the Zimbabwean regime as a total failure of leadership.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Members Estimate Committee and whether the Government could take into account the comments of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when bringing the matter to the House. Perhaps I could make it clear to him and to the House that the Members Estimate Committee reports to the Speaker, and it is therefore not for the Government to bring that matter forward. As Leader of the House I am a member of the Committee, but next Thursday's debate on the report will be led by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I pay tribute to the three members of the MEC—the MEC three—for all the work that they have done in conducting their root-and-branch review. We must ensure that there is proper transparency and public confidence in Members' allowances, which should be commensurate with their ability to live both in London and in their constituencies, and run effective offices, in the interests of our democracy and of their constituents.
	I want to help the House by explaining what will happen next Thursday. After the Zimbabwe debate, we intend to move a motion making it clear that the first debate will be on the Baker review proposals, which we will table in the Government's name—in fact, they should already have been tabled today—for the House to see and for hon. Members to try to amend. The Government's approach has been set out in our written ministerial statement. Thereafter, there will be votes on the question of MPs' pay, and the future comparator and review systems. We propose that they will be followed by a debate on the MEC and also, following the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), on the question on the privacy of hon. Members' addresses. That is how the debates will go, and I shall bring forward a proposal to the House to that effect. If colleagues want to make different proposals, perhaps they will do so as soon as possible.

Martin Linton: Can we have a debate on the insane competition among developers to build taller and taller buildings in London? A proposed 38-storey block in Clapham Junction and a 39-storey block in Wandsworth high street are to be joined by a tower that is 1,000 ft high—equivalent to 100 storeys—next to Battersea power station. That will be exceeded only by a tower in my right hon. and learned Friend's own borough, which will be 1,117 ft high. Can we have a debate about reintroducing height guidelines to stop that madness?

Harriet Harman: The point of an independent review is that it can be reported to the House, as has happened with the review by Sir John Baker, whom I should like to thank once again most warmly for his work. The House will have a choice as to whether to accept his proposals or the alternative resolutions tabled by the Government. That will be a matter for the House, but I pay tribute to Sir John Baker: he has given the House a review, which it can choose, if it so wishes.

Madeleine Moon: Can we have a debate on the role of the third sector in international disaster relief? Last Saturday I was in Porthcawl, where members of Rotary were collecting money for that organisation's Shelterbox scheme. A Shelterbox contains a 10-person tent, a water purification system, bedding, cooking equipment and a small toolkit. The boxes are pushed out of the back of aeroplanes flying over inaccessible regions and are used to help families survive until international aid efforts are put in place. The kits save lives, and we should acknowledge them. Can we debate that?

Andrew Robathan: Can we have a debate, or at least a statement, on today's reports that the powers of the Criminal Records Bureau are to be extended? As I understand it, people who have foreign exchange students in their houses would have to be subjected to a CRB test, as would I if my children's friends came for a sleepover. We could also then look into the fact that most child abuse takes place within families, including extended and step families. We could consider whether parents or step-parents—or girlfriends and boyfriends—should have CRB tests, and determine whether there is a real issue, which would be addressed by the proposed powers.

Harriet Harman: I understand that, when the MEC three drew up their report, they had discussions with the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. However, the right hon. Gentleman raises a good point when he asks how the House will know what that Chairman's views are when the debate is held. Perhaps I will invite the MEC to liaise with the Chairman to see whether he wants to write a letter to hon. Members, so that they will know his position before the debate. That would be better than having the House debate the matter and come to decisions, only to see on the television that something had been missed that the Chairman would have wanted to draw to our attention.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will be able to raise those points in the debate. If he wants clarification before then on the detail of the Members Estimate Committee report—on what it intends and what lies behind it, but is perhaps not explicit in it—he should get it from the House authorities. The hon. Gentleman has time to do that before the debate next Thursday; there is plenty of time, as the report came out yesterday.
	The hon. Gentleman said that a vote would assist the Speaker and everybody else to understand the strength of feeling about the privacy of Members' addresses—and about the protection of democracy in this House, so that Members can speak up without fear or favour and without looking over their shoulders. All the hon. Members who have signed his early-day motion have contributed to that understanding, and no doubt signatures can still be put on it. It is important for there to be an opportunity for a formal motion of the House.
	If no one votes against a motion, that is not because people do not feel strongly about it, but because there is unanimous support for it. I am sure that we will not need to debate it at huge length next Thursday, because there is a fair degree of unanimity across the board. Even some of the usual suspects, who can usually be counted on to be on the other side of the argument, are on the side of the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion.

Harriet Harman: I understand that the Secretary of State was asked about that issue yesterday during his statement on the Pitt report. The House has already had an opportunity to hear his views on the matter. However, I understand that the drinking water inspectorate will investigate the incident. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is important that in the meantime, customers consider the information that the water company has given them.

Shailesh Vara: I am happy to put the hon. Lady out of her misery. First, I remind her that this debate is on the draft legislative programme. As for spending commitments, I will certainly not make any such commitments on behalf of the Conservative party, because we do not know what other horrors we have ahead of us after having just witnessed the first run on a British bank for 125 years. Given how this country is run at the moment, Lord only knows what it will be like in two years' time.
	This is not a programme for the greater good of the country but a programme to try to save a failing Prime Minister who leads a discredited Government who have lost their way and have no vision. It clearly shows that the Government are bankrupt of any new and fresh ideas. That is why the proposals contain no fewer than 12 Conservative policies. As for the rest, they are recycled policies and measures to clear up the failures of the past 11 years.
	Incidentally, the Leader of the House failed to give proper credit to the Conservatives even though the Government have taken on board our policies. I would like to be generous and say that that might have been an inadvertent error of omission, given that she has enormous responsibilities in other capacities. However, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will make good the omission and give credit to the Conservatives for yet again helping out the Government with their policies.
	Let us consider some of the proposals in a little more detail. We welcome the Government's acceptance of our proposal to have directly elected police chiefs and the pledge to cut red tape in police departments. The House will appreciate, however, that this is the very same Government who have spent 11 years increasing red tape for the police force, only now to realise that it needs to be cut. It is regrettable that the programme makes no mention of dealing with the chaos of overcrowding in our prisons. Nor is there is any indication that the Government understand that when a judge sentences someone to serve time in prison, that does not take into account that part of the sentence that is served on early release outside prison.
	At a time of enormous housing uncertainty, it is good to see that the Government have adopted our proposals to help first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder through shared equity schemes. However, the public will appreciate the contradiction. The Government speak of helping people to get on to the housing ladder, yet through their nationalisation of Northern Rock they are repossessing people's homes. That brings me to the banking reform Bill, which is necessary because the procedure for financial oversight set up by the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor proved so ineffective when there was the run on Northern Rock. I am pleased that in this respect, too, our proposals have been adopted by the Government.
	The citizenship, immigration and borders Bill is a perfect example of a Government in disarray. It is the seventh immigration Bill since 1997, during which time immigration has quadrupled. When will the Government understand that what Britain needs is an annual limit on economic migrants from outside the European Union? Until they recognise that such a limit is required for the greater good of the country, all their immigration policies will continue to fail.
	In 1997, Tony Blair repeatedly proclaimed, "Education, education, education", yet the Education and Skills Bill comprises several rehashed announcements, while the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families indulges in empty rhetoric, showing that he is more interested in political scheming and manoeuvring than in looking after the welfare of British children's education and skills. May I respectfully suggest that he spends a little more time dealing with the problem that almost half the 11-year-olds in our country cannot read, write or add up? He should reflect on the fact that despite the Government's spending £1 billion on trying to deal with truancy, truancy has gone up by 45 per cent. since 1997 to a staggering 1.4 million pupils in 2005-06.
	In a speech to the House on 14 May, the Prime Minister had the audacity to say:
	"Every adult should have the right to a second chance in education".—[ Official Report, 14 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1386.]
	He said that, despite the fact that his Government announced in September last year that funding would be phased out for higher education institutions, directly affecting part-time students, lifelong learners and women returning to work.
	We broadly support the measures in the constitutional renewal Bill, but I have to put on record that they are not new. They were announced before the last draft legislative programme. That is not to say that the Bill is comprehensive, because it most certainly is not. Major issues have been ignored. Why, for example, is there no proposal to give English Members of Parliament the final say on English matters? Despite several high-profile cases of electoral fraud, why are the Government still dithering and not bringing in individual voter registration to safeguard effectively our electoral system? Failure to do so not only encourages the continuance of fraudulent practices, but further undermines an already damaged process.
	The welfare reform Bill highlights the Government's desperate position. Mandatory skills assessment and training for the unemployment are not new measures. The Prime Minister announced them five years ago, in 2003. Our proposal that incapacity benefit recipients should undergo assessments has quite rightly been adopted by the Government, but this Bill is no way to deal with the serious issue of welfare reform. Almost 5 million people are on out-of-work benefits and 2 million people are economically inactive and want to work. One in six young people are not in employment or education, and the UK has a higher proportion of children living in workless households than any other European Union country. Apart from re-announcing five-year-old policies and acquiring Conservative proposals, what else have the Government done on welfare reform? It has had 10 strategies in two years and more than 30 announcements in one year alone, and none of them have delivered for the millions who desperately need the Government's assistance.
	The NHS reform Bill is welcome, not least because it contains Conservative proposals, such as a constitution for the NHS and new rights for information about health care, but plans for hospitals to receive payments depending on patient satisfaction miss the point. The point is not whether a patient feels satisfied, but whether the treatment received by the patient has improved their condition.

Shailesh Vara: The right hon. and learned Lady chunters from a sedentary position that it is both. If she looks at the small print of the draft legislative programme, she will find that it talks about satisfaction. It does not talk about end results. There is a distinction, and a very big distinction.
	Continuing Government interference in the NHS will not help. If the NHS is to be truly successful, it must be at arm's length from political interference. Regrettably, the NHS reform Bill fails to address major concerns. Centrally imposed, politically motivated targets will not be scrapped. The scandal of mixed-sex wards continues and cancer survival rates are lower than almost all European countries except the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia.
	As for the substance of the law reform, victims and witnesses Bill, we broadly support its measures to protect victims and witnesses. There are, however, matters that we oppose. We oppose the creation of a sentencing commission, which would consider the size of the prison population when setting sentencing guidelines. That simply is not right. There should be prison places for all those who have been sentenced to serve time in prison. Sentences should not be restricted because of a lack of spaces.
	It is important to appreciate that we are debating a draft legislative programme—I emphasise the word "draft". By definition, that means that there is the possibility that the programme may be changed in some way. However, it is clear that the Government have already made up their mind, and that there is no intention to incorporate the points that may be made and put forward in the debate today. That was confirmed by the statement that we heard today on the equality Bill. The equality Bill is part of the draft legislative programme, but earlier this morning, the Leader of the House stood at the Dispatch Box and spoke about it as if it were a fait accompli and how it would now become part and parcel of the Government's legislative programme. So much for consultation of the people in this House or in the wider country.
	The fact that the draft legislative programme is a sham is also confirmed by the online consultation programme to which the Leader of the House referred. She helpfully informed the House that there have been 400 responses to the survey, despite the fact that the five questions asked are of a broad, general nature. Members of the public wishing to contribute to the debate are allowed to use only 500 characters, including punctuation and spaces, for comments on each Bill. Incidentally, that is 500 characters fewer than they had last year. Perhaps the Leader of the House would like to explain why, despite the fact that she is so keen to tell the public about this consultation process, she is not so keen to listen to them, other than by restricting them to only 500 characters. I would also be grateful if the Leader of the House would inform us how much has been spent on this sham consultation, which consists of meetings throughout the country. Perhaps she could inform us how many meetings there have been and how many people took the trouble to attend them.
	This draft legislative programme leaves no doubt that this Government are tired, have run out of steam and have no vision. They have vision only when they borrow policies from my party. The Government do not understand people's concerns, nor do they want to understand those concerns. Instead of leadership, there is dithering. Instead of substance, there is rhetoric. Instead of hope, there is despair. The people of Britain deserve better.

Ken Purchase: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara)—[ Laughter.] A little later, I shall refer to one point on which I agree with him, notwithstanding the fact that we appear to have snaffled half of his programme.
	If I welcome our programme, it is on the basis that there is room for a more open debate about the type of programme that Governments wish to implement in their years of office. I think that this is a welcome innovation, and I intend—notwithstanding the acres of empty seats today—to hold the House enthralled while I speak at length about the need for a Labour programme.
	If I may wax a little philosophical, it seems to me that over the past 20 or 25 years, the country has become less of a community, and become more atomised and more individualistic. While one sees many merits in the enterprise, drive and real excitement that individuality can bring, it seems that opportunities have been wasted, lost and thrown away—opportunities to bring together those talents into a more meaningful whole by working together and understanding we can do certain things much better together than by providing for them individually. A little later I will mention the three core services that Government and local government should try to administer efficiently, effectively and in the interest of developing community opportunity, equality and fairness in communities.
	This is the Labour party's programme. I make no apologies for that: it is a political programme that concerns the Labour party and the Labour Government. It has been a disappointment to me that fewer and fewer people seem to have a real understanding of what the Labour party does, what it is for and what its real aims are—its goals and its purpose. People do not seem to know what it wants to achieve, behind those glorious sentiments that we have held so dear for so long—equality, fraternity, friendship, community, equal opportunities and equal outcomes. I am not sure that the people whom I represent know quite what the Labour party means now. People in my constituency always knew where the Labour stood on, for example, grammar schools, private health care and private schooling. They knew that we were working in the opposite direction and that we wanted to produce more collective responses to the needs of our people in education, health and equal opportunity. Now, they are not sure because, over the years, we seem to have adopted a pragmatic, right-of-centre view about the nature of our collective response to the need for housing, for example.
	I have always believed that one of the great achievements of the Labour and Conservative Governments that immediately followed the war was the production of 400 million houses that the local authority owned, controlled and managed. For many years, they provided a safe haven for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers who knew that they had a home that was protected and for which people were democratically accountable. People could go to their local councillor and say, "This hasn't been done, that hasn't been done. They're hopeless—they ought to do this." The opportunity to make representations through an elected person was valued—not spelled out, trumpeted from the roof tops or even articulated, but understood. It was in us—we knew that a councillor was not too far away to whom our mothers could go if they could not get on the housing list. We have taken much of that contact away and we are the poorer for it.
	Council housing was a massive success and perhaps the greatest public health measure that an advanced country has taken anywhere on earth. It provided standards and made decent provision for the preparation of food, for hygiene and for sleeping accommodation that was not desperately overcrowded. I do not claim credit only for the Labour party because the Churchill, Macmillan and Eden Governments followed that path and recognised that people in our society do not have to aspire to home ownership. Council housing provided a huge safety net for people who otherwise would have fallen on the sometimes less than gentle mercies of private landlords. Housing shortages led to Rachman. Labour and Conservative Governments failed to tackle the post-war housing crisis and that provided the opportunity for Rachman and his like to exploit people to a terrible extent, at a huge price to family happiness and welfare.
	I believe that 300,000 homes were built under Macmillan's rather benign rule, which did a huge amount to house the people of this country. Now we seem obsessed with finding new, different, more complicated—even labyrinthine—ways to fulfil the demand of the individual to be treated individually and not have to be part of the common herd. It is me, me, me and we have got to the stage at which we must introduce some corrective measures. I well recall and greatly admire—although I am not especially of his political persuasion—Anthony Crosland's view of housing provision. He said that there should be a role for the voluntary sector. He estimated that 2 per cent. of the housing stock should always be untrammelled by price or local authority rules, which must be open, fair and transparent. He said that there would always be 2 per cent. who did not fit, and he believed that the voluntary movement—dating back to Octavia Hill—could provide the little bit of space for those who simply do not fit to be decently housed.
	Before the first world war, private landlords owned approximately 90 per cent. of all housing in Britain. Some were good, some were indifferent and some were frankly appalling. We were moving away from that. Building societies grew in the 1920s and 1930s and the idea of mutuality was adopted—the virtuous circle of local savers putting money into their local building societies and the local builder building houses for local people. A feeling of belonging and warmth kept the virtuous circle going and people revelled in self-help and improvement.

Ken Purchase: The hon. Gentleman is right. The local nature of the building societies meant that they knew people and could help them before they got into serious trouble. The building society movement built on the idea of mutuality. It provided the opportunity for those who were earning more, doing better and aspiring to move for not so much social mobility but geographical mobility to get to employment, to take advantage of living near relatives and so on. That movement has recently been crushed, again by the demands of selfish individuals: "I want my £600, £700, £800 by demutualising." Building society after building society has demutualised. For what? A few coppers. In the great scheme of things, people are no better off for breaking up a wonderful community facility—our local building societies—and taking a few pence from that.
	The hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire mentioned Northern Rock. What a tragedy. Why did it happen? For the sake of a few hundred quid for the members of that building society. It resulted in overstretch, overreach, greed, incompetence and rules that were not intended to govern that sort of institution being smashed through. A few people got very rich indeed, but that was not for our overall benefit. We wanted to ensure that everybody had a fair kick of the ball and our building societies did that job.
	I am sad that the Queen's Speech contains no real understanding of how to put things back together, whether by again giving councils the right to build decent, proper homes for those who wish to rent, or revitalising our building society movement through the idea of mutuality and the virtuous circle that I mentioned. A Labour Queen's Speech should impress those virtues into the text, but they are simply not there.
	Let me consider education. Everybody says, "Of course, I want the very best for my children." Don't we all. Would people sensibly express some other sentiment? However, we then have to consider how to achieve that. Again, let me give a Conservative example—Rab Butler, who introduced the Education Act 1944, which produced the mechanism for comprehensive schooling. That did not happen in a big way, although Catholic schools in my constituency admirably adopted the idea long before Shirley Williams came along with her circulars in the 1960s. The Act created the opportunity to provide a high standard, quality education and to get rid of the idea of the sheep and the goats. In the 1930s, the Hadow report stated that we needed three levels of schools, starting with secondary modern schools for ordinary, dull boys—it did not mention girls. We needed technical high schools for those boys who were going to do better and become engineers, and we needed grammar schools for the very bright children who would lead the nation into the future. It was a tripartite, three-legged system. Post-war, it delivered a Britain that was not performing, and that was wasting great swaths of talent. It was not employing our men and women who had fought through the second world war and who had returned to our industries. It was not giving them the tools that they needed to make a new start and to develop Britain in the way that it should have been developing from the end of the 19th century.

Ken Purchase: I am not going to be drawn into an argument about the Beatles, because I know that the right hon. Gentleman knows much more about pop music than I ever will. Notwithstanding that, I have real sympathy with that idea. I am firmly of the view that a course of education should be open to every child who can benefit from it, whether in primary, secondary or tertiary education. The test should always be the same: is this course of study appropriate to this child, and will the child benefit from it? There is little point in taking swaths of children into higher and further education who simply will not benefit from that resource being offered to them. Our job, across the House, is to ensure that more and more children can take advantage of the quality education that abounds in many of our institutions across the nation.
	The right hon. Gentleman suggests blaming teachers. Well, they are a very easy target. I take a somewhat different view. There are teachers who do not do their job well, but that is true in every walk of life. We need to deal with people who do not deliver properly. That might be in a private company, where the employer can see that obstructions are being caused to their production process. Something would need to be done about that; there is no way around that. Equally, in the public sector, people who are an obstacle to progress and who are preventing the very best service from being given have to be removed or dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman and I find ourselves at one on this matter. This is a pragmatic matter where we have to be sure that people's competences are right, proper and appropriate to the job that we are asking them to do, whether in the private or the public sector.
	In education, however, we have found ourselves going down the road of diversification, choice and parent choice. People say, "We have not got enough; we must have more. We must have trust schools. We must have academies. We must have this, that and the other." It is all about the cachet attached to their boy or girl going to this or that school, but I say, "Look out." The more selfish people among the middle classes will get fed up with academies. Oh yes, they will get fed up and they will need something different to say about their kids. Just look out for the word "conservatoire" starting to creep into Education Ministers' vocabulary. It will not take long for that to happen.
	It is problematic when we talk about parents aspiring for the very best for their children. It is such an easy track to take, and there is such a ladder to climb but, frankly, it is a bit like Jack and the beanstalk. We can never be sure where the ladder is going to end. We do know, however, that every child and every student is worthy of the best that we can give them, and that must be offered on the basis of affordability, even though we are a rich nation. The way in which we should do that is through a generalised education system, in which teachers are trained to give the best teaching and to recognise special ability where it exists and bring it out in every child.
	I am a great fan of sixth forms, but I recognise that some young people do not prosper in sixth forms. However, if we put them into a less regimented further education college, we find that, a little further down the road, they start to see what their peer group is doing and they develop again. Development in children has fascinated generations, as people have asked how we can best deal with an uneven development and maturation process that cannot be addressed on a collective basis and has to be individualised, and how we can then encapsulate the opportunity within an affordable, comprehensive system of education.
	I want to move on to health. Again, we hear people saying that we must have something different. First we had trusts; now we have foundation hospitals. There is an idea that everybody has to be involved, but not everybody wants to be involved. Generally, people want to see decent houses, decent schools and decent hospitals in their area. They then want to get on with their lives. They want to go to work and provide for their families as they grow up and grow old. There is a great deal of focus on getting people to participate in this, that and the other. Well, people do participate, but they do so at the point of use, be it in housing, education, health or local transport.
	In the health service, we are paying the price for the atomisation of the service. We have a national health service, and what a remarkable achievement that was for a post-war Government who were so strapped for cash that they could scarcely afford to feed the nation, let alone develop a health service that was free at the point of use. Yet now, we regard the health service in terms of regions, districts, PCTs and hospitals. We need to get some coherence, because that is the best way in which to deliver the service that people want.
	I promised that I would agree with something that the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said, and I am going to. He suggested that Labour had stolen his party's policies, and I am afraid that that is true. That is why we do not have the good Labour legislative programme that we should have. Not only have we stolen the hon. Gentleman's clothes; we have also gone in for re-announcement after re-announcement. It was a technique that was brilliantly developed by Mrs. Thatcher. We had not come across it before, but it was absolutely superb. We would have five announcements of the same thing over three or four weeks in the newspapers, and now my lot have learned the technique. It drives me absolutely insane. An idea, which was probably not a very good one to begin with, is re-announced and re-announced.
	An example is the one about privatising part of the national health service. People have had it up to here! They do not want the national health service to be privatised. As I have said, they want a good hospital that does a proper job for them. They do not want private clinics and private this, that and the other. BUPA has been doing all that for years—I do not know whether it does it well or badly—but good luck to it, on one level. The truth is that we need a proper, funded state system of health care that is available to everyone at the time of need and free at the point of need. Frankly, I am fed up with the re-announcement of these initiatives, most of which I do not find very helpful anyway.

Ken Purchase: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting me right on that. It was my fevered imagination at work—I always think that schemes that are likely to be of no consequence to the rich are Tory ideas. In Manchester, the scheme will hurt a lot of people. There are people in Manchester who are strongly opposed to the scheme, but my Government have put them in a difficult position by saying, "Do this or you don't get that."
	We had that with council housing, too, with authorities being told, "Either put it out to arm's length or you don't get money to refurbish your houses." That is an absolute disgrace. Why on earth is my party punishing those among the poorest 10 per cent. of people in this country? It is an extraordinary decision not to let progressive councils—Tory or Labour, it does not really matter to me in that sense—not to keep their houses properly maintained without giving them away to some undemocratic body.
	The situation is the same with schools. Building Schools for the Future looks like a great programme and, although we can argue about whether it is correct in every detail, a lot of money is involved. However, the programme comes with a little pair of handcuffs attached. Authorities are told, "Of course you can have all this money, provided you have an academy," because somebody somewhere has, for whatever reason, got the idea—it is quite mistaken—that academies can deliver where other head teachers and schools cannot.
	There is a tendency—and it is not a nice one—for the Government to strong-arm local government. I say this to Conservative Governments and Labour Governments: they cannot deliver their programmes in this country without working hand-in-glove with local authorities. Local authorities are to be treasured and trusted, and they are to be given powers to do the things that they believe to be right in their local circumstances. That is why local democracy is so important. That is why the idea of accountability, democracy and elected representatives having a proper say and determining what is best for the people whom they represent should run through the draft Queen's speech like a stick of rock.
	At one level, it is great that we can have a draft speech. It is a pity that more hon. Members have not seen fit to be here on this Thursday afternoon. Indeed, I am very sorry that only a few hundred people have visited the website, with all its imperfections—I might add that more people look at the beautiful baby pictures that I put on my website. The website has not been a great success, but that illustrates another point. People want good services where they live and they want laws that are appropriate, fair and just. Although the proposals in the Queen's speech may, in the end and in law, deliver some of those things, I would have preferred a programme that had Labour running all the way through it just like a stick of rock.

Robert Smith: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), who made a thoughtful contribution on the importance of community and expressed his concern about the direction of Government policy. On council housing, when I was not long elected, constituents came to me bewildered, because although they thought that the council was the best landlord, they were being bullied to vote for someone else as their landlord. If we really believe in local community, it would make more sense to reflect the wishes of local people in a fair and balanced way.
	As the Leader of the House said, the Government's legislative programme must be seen in the wider context of the whole Session, which is not just about legislation. In fact, many of us would argue that it should be a lot less about legislation. There is a great danger of regarding the number of Bills as a measure of the vibrancy of the Government, but if things are going reasonably well and legislation is not required, introducing another Bill just to get another headline is not an effective use of Parliament's time or an effective way of avoiding extra bureaucracy and red tape.
	It is important to recognise that although the Government have a wider programme, they will be working in a much changed world. The economy will be far more challenging and energy prices will still be a major issue, as will food security, and the Government will have to cope with those challenges. With the economy, world factors may well be at play, but over-extending Government borrowing and allowing private borrowing to get out of control has reduced the flexibility for coping with economic changes. Perhaps it was dangerous to believe the rhetoric that the economic cycle had been abolished; recognition that economic cycles are fairly relentless would have allowed better preparation for coping with a downturn.
	As the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) said, the everyday bread-and-butter concerns of our constituents, such as the future of our post offices, are important. Post offices in my constituency are going through a closure consultation. It is quite frightening that the head of the Post Office has said that if the Government fail to award the contract for the Post Office card account to the Post Office, another 3,000 to 6,000 closures will be needed. At this stage of the Government's thinking, the drawing up of the terms of that contract seems farcical, when this funded closure programme could prove to be just the tip of the iceberg, to be followed by yet further piecemeal closure programmes.
	It is crucial to recognise the value of services that are delivered locally. To that end, the Department for Work and Pensions must avoid getting back into its bullying ways with pensioners and others in receipt of benefit—an issue raised during business questions earlier. If people have chosen to use their post office and they prefer the POCA, they do not want to receive phone calls badgering them to switch to a bank. They had a choice and they freely made it, so they should not be bullied out of it. It is even more frightening for those who find the card account too difficult to cope with. As they could not handle PINs or had visual problems or needed others to collect money for them, they were led to believe that they could keep their girocheques going. Those people are now receiving letters saying that they will have to switch to a bank account. It is worrying when people who have learned and grown up budgeting in one way are suddenly told to change their whole way of life at the behest of, and to make life easier for, the Department for Work and Pensions. That Department should remember that it exists to serve the people it provides pensions to; it is not the masters but the servants of the recipients of pensions.
	As well as all the big issues posed by the legislative programme, I hope that the Government will turn their attention to, and focus their energies on, the day-to-day practice of good governance. They must not be distracted from that by an excessive amount of legislation.
	Let me return to the intervention I made earlier on the Leader of the House. People are too often asked to comment on the priorities in a draft programme without knowing the length of time within which the programme is to be delivered. Dealing with 18 Bills over 18 months is different from dealing with 18 Bills over 10 months. It may be time for the Government to get more grown up about sharing their thinking about the legislative timetable with the whole of Parliament.
	When the programming of Bills was introduced, it was part of "modernisation". It is easy to see why securing a more systemised scrutiny of legislation is tempting and attractive to all Members. It was understood at the time that individual Bills would be programmed, but also that, in the long run, Parliament would get a programme for the year's legislation, which would enable Members to look ahead and discover when Bills were likely to be introduced. The idea was that that would facilitate input from outside lobbying and allow people to influence legislation as it developed. We should build on those ideas. We now have a draft programme and the Queen's Speech will happen later in the year. The Government must have an idea of what they are thinking of doing for the rest of year, and they could share that with Parliament so that we could make better use of our time and provide better scrutiny. Above all, that would engage the public and the outside world, as is meant to happen. Announcing the business a week or so in advance does not give the public a real chance to influence their Member of Parliament's response to the next Bill. More delivery is required from the Leader of the House on the wider agenda of programming and the efficient use of parliamentary time.
	To a Government who have been in power for 11 years, I also suggest that one of the other inevitable cycles—although they might plan to avoid this—is that Governments, Parliaments and those in power change. It would be sensible for them to consider whether the systems in place would make life easy or difficult for them if they find themselves in opposition. They should start to think about how Parliament can scrutinise and hold Governments to account, rather than being frightened of creating such a system. One day they might not be in government, in which case they might welcome such a system.
	Similarly, those of us who aspire to be in government should resist the trappings of power that have accrued to the Executive, and recognise that Executives who are held accountable stand a better chance of long-term credibility and popularity in the country. Executives who get out of touch with the country and Parliament are the ones that start to fall foul of the electorate.
	Let me turn to some of the specific Bills in the draft legislative programme. In some ways, the banking reform Bill is an attempt to put right the Chancellor's legacy, and to pick up the pieces after the damage has been done. The general trend of the banking reform Bill is welcome, but again it should be recognised that allowing private borrowing to get out of control put a lot of pressure on individuals and the economy, which even that Bill will not tackle.
	The business rate supplement Bill could go further to reinvigorate local economies through restoring business rates to local authorities. Currently, business rates go to central Government and are divvied out on a formula. Therefore, making the local area more vibrant benefits individuals, but has no direct payback to the local authority. When a planning authority considers, for example, whether a quarry is a good development, it cannot even calculate the benefits to the local community from a business rate increase.
	The marine and coastal access Bill has been a long time coming. We generally welcome the idea of greater structure in marine planning, but are concerned that the marine management organisation might not be adequately funded to deliver the intentions of the Bill. Reassurance is needed that the means will be willed as well as the ends. The marine and coastal access Bill in this Parliament would govern all the waters off the shores of England and Wales, as well as all the waters around Scotland outside the territorial limit. How will co-operation and co-ordination be ensured between the two authorities with regard to installations and wind farms that cross the border between territorial waters in Scotland and territorial waters covered by UK legislation?
	The education and skills Bill could go further in giving full independence to the education standards authority, because the Department still has control over the appointment of its chair and setting directions. That does not create independence from political interference in educational standards. I very much welcome any attempt to improve the apprenticeships scheme, which is also long overdue.
	The welfare reform Bill will operate in a growing economy, with increasing numbers of jobs. Trying to get those who could work back into employment can be quite a positive message to give out. But if we are entering a period of growing unemployment, especially in certain regions, the challenges faced by those who cannot find jobs, because there are not jobs to be found, must be handled sensitively and carefully.
	The Government have referred to directly elected representatives in connection with the policing and crime reduction Bill. We should like some reassurances about the role of those people and their relationship with day-to-day policing. I should be seriously worried if the Government adopted the American model of elected sheriffs to direct policing. As a councillor, I was a member of the Grampian joint police board. We were able to work with the police, but it was the responsibility of the chief constable, as head of the local police force, to deliver day-to-day policing. It was not for politicians to tell him how he should do that job. We do not want a vigilante-style model to be developed in this country.
	A transport security Bill would provide some reassurance, especially if it went further and ensured that foreign workers would be checked for criminal records, given that they would be working in such secure environments. We have severe reservations about the communications data Bill and its intrusion into private life. There is a danger that by continually producing anti-crime legislation in order to be seen to be doing something, the Government will make the state's role in our private lives far greater than it needs to be unless there are proper checks and balances.
	As we heard in the statement earlier, the issue of victims' anonymity is to be revisited more fully in the law reform, victims and witnesses Bill. I welcome that. I also welcome the creation of a sentencing commission, which will take sentencing out of day-to-day headline party politics. Sentencing should involve long-term understanding of deterrence, reform and effectiveness, and should not be judged on the basis of day-to-day interference by politicians.
	May I make a plea for proper funding for those who must implement the immigration Bill? There is nothing more frustrating for an Member of Parliament than dealing with casework involving individuals who have themselves been frustrated by the operation of the immigration and visa system, which has forced them to surmount many hurdles and experience much delay before they are eventually found to be entitled to what they set out to obtain in the first place. Many of my constituents in north-east Scotland work in the oil industry and move around the world a good deal. Their lifestyles do not fit the simple models used by those who are trying to police the immigration and visa service. It is important to recognise that marriages can be genuine even if they do not accord with the idea of a genuine marriage that someone in London may have.
	One of my constituents who had married in Malaysia was transferred to Angola, and wanted his wife to stay at home. He was told that she must go and live with him in Angola, because that was where he would be working. That is not the way in which people in the oil industry work: their families stay at base, and the breadwinner goes out to the more hostile countries where life is more difficult. Eventually the couple won their case on appeal, but the most frustrating aspect of the case, highlighted by the judge, was what had been said by the immigration authority: if the couple had filled out the form in this country, there would have been no problem. At that point the judge said "I have been told that I must go away and consider the case, but I want to make my judgment now." Bureaucracy should not be allowed to destroy people's lives, or take years out of their lives, when immigration measures could be implemented so much more effectively.
	The coroners Bill is long overdue. As for the constitutional renewal Bill—a rather grand title—I share the view of the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) that individual voter registration should be introduced. Eleven years ago the Government embarked on quite a strong path, recognising that changes to our constitution can greatly benefit and influence our way of life. They delivered on their early promises—on, for instance, their commitment to devolution in Scotland and, perhaps to the despair of many Members of Parliament, on freedom of information legislation—but they lost momentum when it came to recognising the fundamental importance of the constitution and the way in which we are governed to the effectiveness and accountability of the country.
	I still strongly feel that the Government should deliver on reform of our election system, so that every vote in the country counts once again, and people can get engaged. In a politically evenly balanced nation with a two-party system where votes are spread evenly across the country, first-past-the-post can work, but when geographical concentrations of support for parties start to develop and there are many safe seats and only a few marginals, there is disfranchisement, because the political parties all have finite resources—albeit some have greater resources than others—and they decide to engage their campaign resources in those parts of the country where they think they can make a difference to the result. As a consequence, the party message and resources are targeted at those living in marginal seats; and the situation is, in fact, even more serious than that, as the parties work out that only certain people are likely to switch votes. Therefore, very few people in the country are actively engaged in general elections. If they live in what the parties consider to be a safe seat, they are less engaged in the debate and in having a say in the result of the election. Changing our electoral system so that every vote counts is, therefore, not just about altering the balance in Parliament so that it reflects the views of the country more accurately and therefore holds the Government to account more effectively, but about ensuring that, because their vote counts, every voter is seen to be valued by all the parties as someone who has to be influenced and engaged with at election time.
	In 1987, I stood for election in Aberdeen, North, which was considered a safe Labour seat. Frank Doran was the Labour candidate in Aberdeen, South, which was considered a marginal seat with the Conservatives—he is now the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. Money poured into Aberdeen, South; leaflets cascaded out, and people living there had a real sense of being part of a general election. In Aberdeen, North, my Labour opponent put out a wee postcard saying, "The Labour candidate is Rob Hughes". He was so well known and popular that that was all he needed to do. I remember that I was outside a polling station on election day and a Labour activist said to me, "I'm awfully worried; we've put all our troops into Aberdeen, South," and I thought, "Well, I'm going to come second here, so I don't quite see why you're so worried." They won both seats. The north half of Aberdeen had no engagement on the doorstep with the election, but the south had every engagement. That highlights an important reason why we need to reform our voting system.
	On constitutional renewal, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said at business questions, I would have thought that the Government themselves had started to see that fixed-term Parliaments have benefits, as having them would have avoided a very messy situation last year. It would give Members and those in the outside world a date that they can plan around, too. Having a fixed term for the life of a Parliament also fits in with the idea of pre-legislative scrutiny and of having a draft legislative programme, because it gives a natural cycle to the political process, which cannot be interfered with on a day-to-day basis by the Government.
	I reiterate that although this debate is about the legislation, the delivery is about much more than that. It is time that the rest of the House was allowed to know how long the year will be in which we are planning to legislate. It is time that we had far more foreknowledge of the Government's thinking on the programming of legislation. The Government should reinvigorate themselves to be ambitious about constitutional renewal, and should not forget that there is still much to be delivered if we are to have an effective modern democracy that engages all our citizens in the day-to-day life of the governance of our country.

Michael Meacher: I, too, welcome this innovation of a prior debate on the Government's draft legislative programme. It is worth while, so it is disappointing that so few Members are present, but I hope that when it becomes a permanent fixture that will begin to change. I welcome it not least because it is an opportunity for Members to raise our eyes to the bigger picture—to see the wider landscape. We find it so easy in this place to be borne down on by the relentless treadmill of nitty-gritty legislation. To look at the themes behind the Government's intentions for the next year, and perhaps beyond those, is very worth while.
	I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality on her statement about the equality Bill, which is excellent and much-needed legislation. There are several items in the draft legislative programme that I strongly welcome, but I want to measure it against the problems that we in this country actually face, which seems to me the relevant index.
	Three major breakdowns in the British state are seriously threatening both our economy and society. One could probably say that of any year that one is discussing, and I want to discuss the issues in this particular year. One is the over-centralisation of power and the virtual collapse of accountability in this country, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) eloquently referred; he was absolutely right. The second is the breakdown in financial markets and the manifest and comprehensive failure in banking regulation. The third—there is no originality in any of this, of course—is the collapse of the housing market, which will deprive perhaps up to one fifth of the population of any reasonable opportunity of getting a decent home for the foreseeable future. I am pleased to see and welcome the fact that there are items in the draft legislative programme that touch on all these points, but none of them adequately addresses the depth of the problems.
	I turn to the first of my three issues. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) spoke about constitutional renewal at some length and ended his speech on it, and he was absolutely right. He did so in the context of preparing for opposition; I do not accept that point, but irrespective of a party's being in opposition or in government, it is for the whole House—all of us have an interest in this—to strengthen the procedures of Parliament. Parliament is weaker today vis-à-vis the Executive than at any time in my political memory, and I have been here quite a considerable time.
	It is proposed in the draft legislative programme that Parliament be given the final say in ratifying treaties, which is obviously right, and—I am very pleased to see this—that the civil service should for the first time be put on a statutory basis. There has been a great deal of discussion in the past about Governments and Ministers overstepping the line of propriety between politics and the civil service. To clarify the position is very helpful. However, on the wider constitutional issue, that is hardly even skirting the problem. There is a huge democratic deficit in this place and outside. Within Parliament itself, a whole series of reforms is urgently needed to redress that imbalance of power between the Executive and the legislature. Let us not forget—I am sure that none of us does—that this programme was the centrepiece of the Prime Minister's first major statement to Parliament after he became Prime Minister in July of last year. I think that we all thoroughly welcomed it, and I still welcome it, but the heady atmosphere of ambitious reform that it generated has yet to be realised.
	I want to make some proposals that I hope will command support across the House. Members of Select Committees should be elected by secret ballot of all non-Executive Members of the House in accordance with party quotas and should choose their own Chair. That would give Select Committees an independence and standing that would greatly improve the scrutiny of the Executive by the House. In addition, the Prime Minister's nominations for the Cabinet should, as in the US Congress, be subject to ratification by the appropriate Select Committee.
	The terms of reference and membership of committees of inquiry, an extremely important part of the power of a Prime Minister and of enormous relevance to Members of the House and the wider public, should be ratified by Parliament. I am sure that in the vast majority of cases they would be, but there should be that ratificatory process. In addition, Parliament—this would be an innovation, and an important one—should be empowered and funded to set up its own parliamentary commissions of inquiry where it believed it necessary. That is not a radical proposal. I remind hon. Members that that is exactly what the Victorians did, and it is only to return to some of the excellent scrutinising work that Parliament did more than 100 years ago.
	The Liaison Committee should have the right—again, not an original idea of mine; it happens in the French Assembly's equivalent of the Liaison Committee—once a month, or at some other agreed interval, to table a motion for debate and a vote on the Floor of the House. That would make a great deal of difference, whether we are talking about Select Committees or the Liaison Committee. Such a debate should not be on the Adjournment of the House, a mere discussion shop or an Oxford union-style debate, but for a vote of the House, decided not by the Government but by the House, and once a month is not an unreasonable proposal.
	I could go on, and I hope that others will do so, but perhaps we should also have a Select Committee on the democratisation of the House. Others may say that we have the Procedure Committee, which I am perfectly well aware of, but what I mean by a democratisation Committee is that its terms of reference, membership and Chair would be elected by the House, not by the Executive or the Whips. It is our House and we should treat it as such, and we should take upon ourselves the rights and responsibilities that that entails.
	Reform is also just as necessary in the wider society outside the House. We are regaled with the evidence for that virtually every day in the newspapers. In the last few months alone, I have kept a record of several events that are linked by one common thread. Discs containing the sensitive personal details of 25 million people were lost by a private contractor in transit. Metronet's tube refurbishment programme went bust, leaving the taxpayer with a £2 billion bill. A disc containing DNA profiles of more than 2,000 people linked to serious crimes abroad went unchecked for a year by the Crown Prosecution Service. The rescue of Northern Rock, as everyone knows, has cost the taxpayer some £25 billion—I have lost sight of the exact figure—but the former chief executive has walked away with a bonus of £750,000. The National Audit Office recently found that the Ministry of Defence had spent at least £400 million on eight Chinook helicopters that were still not airworthy 13 years after being ordered. I could go on, because there are many more examples.
	What is the link between those examples? It is that nobody was ultimately held responsible. That is what I mean by the collapse of accountability, and it is very unhealthy. I am not being punitive: I am simply saying that we have to consider the negligence, the mismanagement and the other causes. People have to understand that rights and power carry with them responsibilities.
	Why has that collapse in accountability occurred? There are several reasons. Civil service liability is shielded by the myth that the Minister is always responsible. The Minister should be responsible for all things political, but the ambit of responsibility often goes considerably wider and we need to recognise that. Another reason is regulatory capture by the vested interests. One worrying example, which I noted yesterday, was the announcement that an ex-private equity chief has been selected to head up Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. That is an instance of regulatory capture that I find disturbing.
	Another problem is that the regulators, especially in the Treasury, are given too little staffing and funding to be really effective in pursuit of the endemic culture of tax evasion and avoidance. In the unfettered neo-liberal economy in which we live, the big companies and the big financial institutions have largely captured the state—as we repeatedly see. Whatever they demand, they usually get, as is laid out in the newspapers for us week after week. That is where constitutional reform is needed, because the big companies have too much power relative to the democratic forces in this place that are supposed to hold the ring in managing the state.
	The Government like to talk about empowerment, and I am pleased about that. They talk about empowering the citizen, whether through citizens' juries or participatory budget making, but the key is that the Government have to mean it. It does not happen all that often, but when consultations of public opinion take place—notoriously on nuclear energy, genetically modified foods or the third runway at Heathrow—it only generates cynicism when most people give one view and the Government still go ahead with their predetermined view.
	My hon. Friend the Minister may share some of these views, although perhaps I should not say that. It is very difficult to make the case for constitutional renewal when only 24 hours ago the Planning Bill removed all democratic accountability from the licensing of nuclear reactors, incinerators, airports, large road-building schemes and waste dumps. In my view, it is just as difficult to make the case for constitutional renewal when, under the draft legislative programme, the Attorney-General, although he or she will be less able to direct prosecutors, will still be able to prevent prosecutions, as was the case in the recent BAE corruption investigation. I cannot see how that cannot be a conflict of interest. I hope that when we come to debate the matter the House will examine it very carefully.
	The second area of major breakdown concerns the neo-liberal economic order that, as I said, has been dominant in this country and throughout the west—in the US and Europe—for the past three decades, together with the light-touch regulation, which is fairly unique to London, that has always accompanied it. The proposed Bill on banking reform, which I welcome, will make it easier in future for the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority to intervene when a bank gets into difficulty. That is fine. It will also strengthen the financial services compensation scheme. No one would disagree with that. It is perfectly sensible, good stuff, but it does not begin to address the fundamental underlying causes of the banking crisis.
	Several reforms are clearly urgently needed and I want to mention some of them. Structured investment vehicles—SIVs, as they are known in the trade—collateralised debt obligations and all the other fancy, new-fangled financial derivatives through which the sub-prime securitised contagion was carried across the world should surely now all have to be approved, if they are to be approved at all, by a much revamped and more robust FSA. Otherwise, when the economy eventually recovers—it will, even if it is several years down the line—will we not return to where we are now? Where is the evidence of a fundamental rethinking?
	Credit rating agencies, staggeringly, are now paid by the institutions they assess for creditworthiness. That is almost like something out of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". It is extraordinary that that has gone on for so long. Those agencies should clearly be regulated to ensure that they are wholly independent with no conflict of interest. That is obvious, but where is the evidence that that will happen?
	Investment banks should be legally separated from commercial banks. That was exactly what happened in the US in an earlier era and we have to look again at that precedent. The financial system, which has been recklessly overextended in recent years almost like a giant pyramid selling scheme to fund the enormous City bonuses, clearly needs urgent regulation. I am not objecting to high pay or a pretty good bonus as long as they genuinely reflect public welfare and are not a creaming-off of wholly artificial financial froth, which is what so many of the current payments are.
	Robust capital adequacy ratios are also clearly urgently needed if western banks are not going to need increasingly to be bailed out. Only yesterday, we saw Barclays being bailed out by a Qatari bank and sovereign funds from China, Asia and the middle east.
	We need to spend a lot more time in the next year on banks. They should also understand that they have responsibilities besides their drive for self-enrichment. The They should be required to co-operate in establishing a public mortgage bank—I am rather sorry that Northern Rock did not stay in the public domain to do exactly what I am proposing—focused on credit provision for households with low incomes or irregular work. The banks should also have an obligation—I do not say this to be radical or to speak out of turn—similar to the one in the United States, where banks have to contribute at least 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. of their lending to community projects or social enterprise. If they do that in the States, the apogee of capitalism, why in goodness' name do we not do it in this country?
	We need much more public debate on the subject. It is astonishing that since August, when the crisis began, there has been virtually no systematic discussion of it in this House. We need that debate, and preferably a high-powered committee of inquiry to investigate the whole range of problems. There is not just one problem; they are all interconnected—the lack of prudential controls, the regulatory capture, the obscure accounting, the absence of auditor independence, and the existence of an economic élite driven by reckless short-term profit-making at the expense of taxpayers, who then have to bail them out.
	The third area of serious breakdown is the housing market. I welcome the proposed housing Bill, which will do some useful things. It will give social housing tenants more influence over the management of their homes, which is fine, and give people in general more influence over decisions made by their local councils. I am sure that we would all applaud that. However, it does not begin to address the depth of the crisis that is now enveloping housing in this country.
	There has never been a time when the divide between rich and poor has been as great as it is today. I say that with great sadness. I am in favour of people getting better off, and I am not opposed to people being rich, but I am opposed to the enormous gulf between the people at the bottom and those at the top.

Michael Meacher: I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to a statement made by a previous Labour MP, who is now a Trade Commissioner in Brussels, shortly after we came into government in 1997. I was saddened by a current Minister commenting that we should celebrate people being very wealthy. I certainly do not object if people become wealthy by honest work, but the Labour party did not come into existence, and it is not its rationale, to celebrate the very wealthy. It is there to protect the poorest, give them more opportunity and reduce the divide between rich and poor.
	Against that background, the epicentre at which the credit crunch will strike the poorer half of the population hardest is housing. There are already 4 million applicants on lists for council and housing association accommodation. That is an average of more than 6,000 per constituency. Obviously the situation varies a great deal in different parts of the country—in my constituency, it is double that number. There are 80,000 people registered homeless nationwide. One way of preventing that huge pool of housing need from ballooning even further—this is a radical proposal, but I would like it to be considered seriously—would be to allow houses at risk of repossession to be bought by public authorities and their owners converted to tenants until such time as they are able to buy again. I should like that possibility, and the economics that might bring it about, to be considered very seriously.
	The Government have made a commitment to build an extra 15,000 social or affordable houses a year by 2016. That is probably less than half the number necessary to remove the backlog, but it is very welcome. Yet the housing situation is desperate because, tragically, even that lower total is disappearing before our very eyes.
	The Government's objective is to build 240,000 houses next year, and we would all like that to be achieved. Like me, however, other hon. Members will have read the announcement about a week ago from the House Builders Federation that it expects the total to be only 80,000—that is, one third of the objective.
	Although the financial backdrop is very difficult, the Government recently promised an extra £200 million for housing. I would be the first to say that that is very welcome, but it is only enough to build around 1,000 or so extra homes. There are also plans for more shared equity, an objective that the Conservative party shares. However, that is almost irrelevant to the core of housing deprivation today.
	The hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) can correct me if I am wrong, but the Conservatives have made it clear that they would not build a single new council house. They are completely opposed to building council houses, but they are obsessed with home ownership. Home ownership is fine for those who can afford it, and all of us in the Chamber are probably home owners, but a quarter of our population cannot afford it. All that they get is a cavalier, ideological dismissal of their very great needs.
	We are all aware of the state of the public accounts. Given that, the only way out of the present housing crisis that I can see is to allow local authorities to build social or affordable housing by borrowing against the collateral of their housing stock. That is how it should be done, and I desperately hope that the Government will consider that.
	In conclusion, I am sure that the Government wanted this welcome debate on the draft legislative programme to restore some momentum to their direction. I strongly urge them to pursue many of the matters that I have raised, as that would help significantly help them to achieve that purpose.

Robert Smith: I was thinking of some of the apprentices whom I have met in the new schemes set up in the offshore oil and gas industry, and of how enthusiastic and motivated they were by those schemes. The hon. Lady talked about the importance of being able to see a future. Getting across to people that a career can be had through apprenticeships, once they have the skills, and that future employment is possible, is an important part of motivation.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: It is important to VT Shipbuilding, because it is struggling to find skilled people to fill its orders in the workplace, and we will have to move further on that.
	We have to ensure that it is not just large companies, such as VT Shipbuilding, that have the opportunity to offer apprenticeships. Smaller organisations should also have the chance to do so. When I visited one of the smaller companies in my constituency, which was keen to offer apprenticeships, I found that we are often not equipping young people with the sort of life skills required for the world of work. It is important that we go for the five GCSEs, but when I did a seminar with employers, they said that they needed people with skills such as the ability to turn up on time and the ability to work as part of a team. Such life skills are far more important.
	One of the smaller companies in my constituency was having that difficulty. It was bringing apprentices in, but the amount of management time taken up with ensuring that they understood what the world of work was about was becoming counterproductive. It got round that problem by saying that it would only take on apprentices who already had a relative employed. It worked on the basis that if a person's father, uncle or mother was working for the company, they would make sure that the apprentice in question got up and came into work. That is all very well, but it means that a huge crowd of people do not get the opportunity to work. If we can offer support to smaller enterprises, allowing them management time and mentoring time, it would help us to move forward.
	Raising the education participation age to 18 will be a key enabler of the provisions in the new education and skills Bill. Contrary to the Conservative party's views that raising the participation age to 18 is a gimmick or a stunt, I believe that it is a radical, fundamental reform, which shows that we are serious about fairness and maximising the potential of all young people.
	In my maiden speech, I referred to the motto of one of the schools in my constituency, the Admiral Lord Nelson school: "Dare to Dream, Aim to Achieve". We should bear those sentiments in mind in ensuring that we have the right framework in place so that every child who dares to dream also has the opportunity to achieve.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: There is a question about cost-effectiveness and the size of the unit. Often, the problem with small sixth forms is that they cannot offer the breadth of subjects that colleges can. However, I take on board my hon. Friend's point that we must offer a variety of settings and that it is no good saying that we will raise the education age to 18 and letting people assume that everybody will pour into the colleges. We must offer a variety of training. We are not saying that everybody has to stay in academic education till the age of 18, but that we will not allow 16-year-olds simply to leave school and do nothing. We are there to ensure that a variety of options is available, be they workplace-based or college-based training. We have a lead-in period to ensure that that variety is in place. As I said at the beginning, we have set ourselves a hard task, but there is no problem with doing that if we are serious about making it work.
	A solid economy and a fairer education system are the founding principles of a good society. More than that, we need a society based on fairness, with fairness and opportunity enshrined and codified in our national life. In modern Britain, nobody should be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin, gender, age, religious creed, disability or sexuality. Everybody should have an equal chance to succeed, and it is right that those equalities should be properly enshrined in law.
	That leads me to the second Bill that I want to consider this afternoon—the equalities Bill. We have already made good progress in achieving our aim of equality for all, especially thanks to some of the progressive legislation that we have passed in the past decade, which no other Government were prepared to do. However, it is right to move to a single equality duty, which reflects modern Britain in the 21st century and encourages opportunity. If the first pillar is education, the Government must also ensure that people who take the opportunity to gain skills, training and formal qualifications are not thrown off course by lazy prejudice. I therefore welcome the provision to require public bodies to consider the diverse needs and requirements of their work force and the communities that they serve. It is right for those who work in those bodies and for organisations that are based in and serve the community, and for which taxpayers pay, to reflect the diversity of all the taxpayers of this country. It is also right that, under that legislation, we should make public bodies more transparent, in recognition of the fact that inequality can be hidden. It cannot be tackled if we cannot see it.
	Britain seems to be a more tolerant society than it was a decade ago, but I am sure that we have all seen examples of people who are still being discriminated against. It is therefore right that we should introduce the Equality Bill, to ensure that there is no room for discrimination in today's Britain. And what better place to start than in this House? It is a source of shame that of the 646 Members elected when I joined the House in 2005, only 125 were women. It is, however, a source of personal pride that 96 women in the House are Labour MPs. This was achieved by one means, and one means only: positive action, in the form of all-women shortlists.
	Female colleagues on this side of the House will be acutely aware of the recent passing of a very good friend, Val Price, who ran the Labour Women's Network. Many of us owe her a deep debt of gratitude for her strong belief and determination. She championed all-women short lists and devoted herself to giving women the confidence and self-esteem that they needed to follow their dreams. It is easy to forget how few women there were in Parliament before this Government came to office, but fortunately, these days it is difficult for political parties to ignore women and women's issues in politics. I am convinced that much of that is down to the work of Val Price. It is right that we should embed these positive changes, and the progress that we have made so far, and I welcome the commitment that will ensure that we allow political parties to use all-women short lists until 2030.
	All-women short lists are a prime example of positive action. The new equality Bill will enable companies that wish to have a diverse work force that reflects the environment in which they exist also to take positive action. Where there is equal ability and equal talent, employers will be able to make a positive decision to redress inequalities in their work force. This will benefit employers as well as employees. Surveys have shown that employees value working for an organisation that has a strong corporate responsibility ethic and a mature approach to equality. Organisations that want to attract the best employees will have to demonstrate their commitment to equality. When we were discussing the equality Bill earlier, we talked about getting the private sector involved. I am very keen that the organisations in the private sector that contract with the public sector, and therefore use public funds, should be subject to these considerations.
	The private sector should also remember that many people these days have opportunities to make investment choices that they did not have before. Investment has opened up. Thanks to the child trust fund, every parent in the country now has a nest egg to invest for their child, and there is now a whole army of investors among people who never dreamed that they would have a choice about where to invest their funds. People who have a choice about financial returns might also want to make their choices on an ethical basis. There is therefore a huge advantage in companies starting to look at such factors, and for the private sector to start taking them on board as well.
	The gender pay gap represents another huge inequality, and despite all the efforts through equal pay legislation, men who work full time still earn 40 per cent. more per hour than women who work part time. A veil of secrecy is often drawn over pay and, as I said, hidden discrimination is much more difficult to tackle. I therefore warmly welcome the requirement for public sector organisations, and organisations that contract with public sector organisations, to publish their gender pay gap. As I said earlier, I hope that the private sector will follow suit. We can look at the facts and find out where the gaps are. We can see who is following best practice and identify the organisations that need to improve.
	We are the party of equality, and we have made progress. We were the party that challenged disability discrimination, tackled the pay gap, fought racism and supported equal treatment for gay people long before it was the accepted wisdom or the current fashion. The new equality Bill shows that we have an unwavering commitment to those values, and I hope that the other parties in the House will support it.
	Building on our proud list of achievements, steering the economy through difficult times, fairness, opportunity and equality for all—these are the hallmarks of a Labour Government. We have made solid progress that has all too often been sneered at by the Opposition, but it has been welcomed by the people whom I came here to look after. They are the people who do not have the loudest voices and who are not the most articulate. They are the people to whom life has not dealt a great hand to start with, but they have dreams and aspirations just like everyone else. That is what we are about as a party. The Conservatives might think that they talk a great talk, but I think that that is all empty froth. I believe that what we are delivering in office is not soundbites but sound action, and long may that continue.

Helen Goodman: As the hon. Gentleman will realise, that probably means July.
	The hon. Gentleman found the constitutional renewal Bill somewhat disappointing, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). The Bill contains 61 reforms relating to such matters as the civil service, treaties and the role of the Attorney-General. Those are all important matters, even if they are not widely understood: they make a significant difference to the way in which the country is governed, and to the openness with which it is governed.
	The hon. Gentleman made a plea for electoral reform to be included in the Bill. As I am sure he appreciates, a key element of constitutional change is a degree of consensus so that changes can be sustainable and long-lasting. I do not believe that there is that degree of consensus on electoral reform.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton congratulated my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Minister for Women and Equality, on the proposed equality Bill, and spoke of the importance of promoting equality in this country. He wanted us to look at how the draft legislative programme fitted in relation to three issues: what he sees as the over-centralisation of power and the collapse of accountability, problems in the financial market, and problems in the housing market. I have already outlined some of the measures in the constitutional renewal Bill, but my right hon. Friend needs to ask himself whether it is correct to assert, as he did, that Parliament is significantly weaker now than it was 20 years ago. I am sure he is familiar with the statistics put together by Professor Cowley at Nottingham university, which demonstrate that this Parliament, the one before that and the Parliament elected in 1997 are far more assertive than Parliaments were in the previous 50 years. That is not always applauded by my colleagues in the Whips Office, but it is true. That shows that parliamentarians are taking an assertive approach to scrutinising proposed legislation.
	I am sure my right hon. Friend is also aware of the significant programme of parliamentary reform that is under way. He knows that we will introduce regional Select Committees, and I hope that he knows that we are looking at the petitioning arrangements and at having an e-petitioning system. We have also opened up the EU scrutiny process. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is taking forward the practice of pre-appointment hearings for many public-sector posts. While I do not know what happens in the other political parties, the truth is that Labour Select Committee members are not chosen by the Whips; there is a negotiation with the elected committee of the parliamentary party. I am not saying that we have a perfect Parliament and that we do not need to make further reforms, but it is right to acknowledge the good things that have been happening in recent and current Parliaments.
	My right hon. Friend talked about empowerment and citizens juries, and about the role of the Attorney-General. Ministers are, of course, primarily responsible for maintaining national security, so it is reasonable for there to be an exception in respect of the involvement of the Attorney-General in national security cases. The benefit of the proposed legislation is that the conduct of such cases will be clearer and more transparent.
	My right hon. Friend talked about the banking reform legislation. He displayed a far greater expertise in, and understanding of, all the different financial instruments that are used internationally than I have, so I cannot say that I know exactly how all the points he made will be addressed. However, we will pass on Members' suggestions on different Bills to the relevant Departments.
	My right hon. Friend also talked about inequality and his concern about the level of pay and bonuses in the City, which he feels have reached irresponsible levels. I hope that he saw the remarks of the Governor of the Bank of England to the Treasury Committee a couple of weeks ago.
	My right hon. Friend referred to the current significant housing need, and his interest in the forthcoming housing Green Paper. I hope that in addition to his appreciation of the equality Bill, he will be pleased to see that legislation will be introduced on agency workers and on the right to request flexible working time.
	My right hon. Friend was right to say that the Opposition seem to be opposed to building more council housing, and he pointed to the need for a significant increase in affordable housing. In fact, the Opposition seem to be opposed to most house building.